This time was his turn to leave his mark in the history of his general meeting. The “intercourse”, as the New York Times described it, almost hourly speech at the anniversary 80th session may not have exceeded his first and only appearance-voucher Muammar Gaddafi In 2009, one and a half hours, but left over that of Fidel Castle left in the step close to five hours, even the Nikita Khrushchev who was talking about two and a half hours.
None of them, except for Gaddafi who tore the United Nations Charter, questioned the role and substance of the UN. And, however, no president of their deceitful defense of peace, security, sustainable development, international law and human values, even in words. But Trump does not like international organizations and the UN is automatically at the top of the list.
Unless the Otoku was spoiled, the damage he denounces as part of the triple sabotage he received from UN officials, although the system was installed under the supervision of White House officials, his speech may have been more conventional.
At that time, of course, we would not know the real opinion of the planetary on the organization found after World War II as a forum of peace assurance, with the US playing a decisive role. “What is the purpose of the United Nations?” He asked improvised by the US president. All he does is send ‘Strongly worded letters’ and talk to ‘Hollow words, who do not solve war’.
Left the diplomatic language aside
So what is the role of the UN and the General Assembly of the 193 Member States that make up it? The truth is that in recent years its humanitarian mission has overcuted its other activities, as the US on Trump is vetoed by anything about climate and sustainable development, and China and Russia are doing the same on issues that the US set as priorities.
Even so, a series of countries such as France, Britain, Canada, Australia, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Spain considered it.
This is not the rule. A recent study in The Review of International Organizations, which analyzed about 10,000 speeches (1946-2019), shows that in the last decade, state leaders have been the majority of speakers. Compared to ministers or permanent representatives, leaders are more often addressed to their domestic audience, speaking simpler and more “personal” and avoiding diplomatic language.
The diplomatic language was also avoided by Trump, who, enriching the doctrine of “war on terrorism”, recalled intentions for harsh cuts in US funding and attacked the immigrant acquis – with spikes for “unilateral” recognitions and Palestinian states. ‘Finished invasions’.
In addition, the exclusion of Mahmoud Abbas From the General Assembly – with a visas recall for him and 80 more Palestinian officials, as announced by the State Department – and US Secretary of State for responsibility Mark Rubiofor ‘Undermining peace efforts’ and ‘Unilateral recognition of a hypothetical Palestinian state’, They completed the scene.
‘Pact for the Future’ and Maga
In the speech of accepting the 80th UN General Assembly last June, the former German Foreign Minister, Analena Berbokhad stated that “The mission of our time is to make the United Nations appropriate for their purpose, suitable for the future”. The “Pact for the Future” plan adopted last Autumn last year operates as a roadmap map of the principle of multiculture.
As the Secretary General of the Organization put it, Antonio Guterresthe target is ‘To bring the polymership behind the rim of the cliff’at a time ” Reckless disruption and relentless human suffering ‘.
Trump’s Maga perception is far from them. He lists the wars he has stopped, while UN statistics show that 71 peacekeeping missions have been developed since 1948 (from Angola and Cambodia to Sierra Leone and Liberia), while UN organizations continue their “unseen” Management of the world radio fabrication that brings connectivity to millions. “The UN remains irreplaceable, the only meeting point for peace, sustainable development and human rights” Guterres insists.
Since the 2001 transition to “Dead -Eirini”
The crucial question is not whether the UN will survive but what peace will be a guarantor – and for whom. ‘The Step’ talked to him Oliver Richmonda distinguished Professor of International Relations at the University of Manchester, who has highlighted – with influential books and comparative studies from the Balkans to Afghanistan – when UN interventions produce legalized peace and sometimes a fragile “peace”.
Richmond describes the transition launched by the US under the presidency George Bush In 2001 with “War Against Terror” and which has reached two decades later in a “dead -end peace”, in the core of which are being recovered from the depths of “Old Order”, violence and corruption as accelerators of transnational disputes and economic growth.
With – almost feudal – Trump’s argument, as Richmond attributes, that the supremacy of the power of the elite is positive because they “know” to rule better than ordinary people. “The UN is not to blame because it does not control its resources. After the war against terrorism, their leaders and electoral bodies chose withdrawal. “ He notes, characteristically citing Cyprus as an early “laboratory” of this strategy.
“Dead -Peace” is fueled by a globalized hybrid conflict: sabotage, misinformation, media control and internet, systematic undermining of the rule of law and a worrying convergence between American “authoritarian capitalism” “Where capital and politics come over law, democracy and human rights.
This tried to consolidate Trump by the step » Richmond notes, something that many inside and outside the UN consider dangerous, “But it seems to work for his electoral audience”.
‘More durable than he thinks’
To ‘World Village’as he had called the UN General Assembly Coball positions are publicly discussed and evaluated. “Through this complex and messy forums, better ideas and unexpected convergence can emerge.
This is the purpose of the world platform » The British internationalist says, while underlines the scientific knowledge produced by the UN specialized organizations as the most reliable bridge between political rhetoric and rules of law that govern peace and security, growth and prosperity. “It may sound paradoxical, but the UN is more durable than Trump thinks. He has proven that he has the unique ability to “turn” the role of scapegoat to a common gain, bringing disagreements to light and re -installing the dialogue on new foundations. “ ends up.
